gospel, a jam session, 55 years ago today. huckabee is next, have a great week. week. >> welcome to huckabee. tonight our special republican presidential forum live from fox news headquarters here in new york city. featuring the republican candidates for president who will face questions from three prominent republican attorneys general. good evening, i'm mike huckabee, since fox news held the first republican presidential debate in may, the candidates have debated the issues 14 times. every one of the candidates you're going to hear from tonight could become president. and you, as a voter, will evaluate these candidates based on fair and balanced treatment. now, having been a candidate, and having experienced the frustration of an event that left some on the enls we're going to do everything that is unique and valuable for you the voter, as well as for the

candidates. and each of the candidates, all six of them, who accepted our invitation, will appear individually, they'll answer questions from our panel and each candidate will get exactly the same amount of time, 11 minutes, and they'll be able to answer those questions in that time frame. and candidates are going to be required to focus on the questions, and they're asked not to mention or attack other candidates. and also, the order in which you'll see them tonight was determined by a drawing held just prior to the event. there is no audience, that can influence your perceptions, and at the close, each candidate will be given one minute for summation. and instead of journalists we have three very distinguished republican attorneys general dually elected by the people in their duties. first from oklahoma, attorney general scott pruet. in the center seat, florida attorney general pam botany and rounding out the panel, from virginia, ken cuccinelli,

my job as moderator is keep it moving and when their time is up. john huntsman declined our repeated invitations and herman cain declined before suspending his campaign. your post your thoughts on our wall, and tweet using the hash tag huck forum. and before we get to the candidates talk a little about what we hope will happen as a result of this forum tonight, scott. let me begin with you. >> governor, what a great opportunity to talk about the very important constitutional principles, issues of federalism, the role of the states and federal government. what is a governor, and state, key areas that affect americans lives from health care to immigration, to education to the environment and as attorneys general each day we deal with issues in

these of those. we have a president, a president who doesn't respect those principles who believes that washington is always the answer. tonight to have the opportunity to discuss these candidates, their commitment to test their knowledge and see if they're going to be different as they lead in the white house is very important to americans, as relates to those particular areas because at the end of the day this is not some abstract legal concept about the constitution or federalism. those issues are real and it's real and we want to protect our freedom and liberty. >> mike: pam? >> governor, you know, as attorney general, it is my role to protect the citizens in my states and defend our laws. and now, as scott said, we have a president it's unprecedented, what he's trying to do is just undermine our confusion. and i, along with 25 other states, we sued the federal government regarding the unconstitutional health care mandate and we have to all three of us all day long, but

ultimately that's not what's going to fix america, what's going to fix america is electing a conservative republican president who shares our values and knows the true meaning of the constitution. >> mike: and ken cuccinelli? >> governor, i'm a constitutional conservative and i've been compelled like my colleagues here to sue the federal government to picket power constitution from that federal government, as well as my state and to keep it from violating its own federal laws whether it be health care, the epa, the national labor relations board, the fcc, the list goes on. as pam said it's unprecedented how long that list is. it would be far better if i didn't have to play that role and when constitutional conservatives don't have sufficient sway in washington to rein in the federal government, state attorneys general become the last line of defense in our federalist system against an overreaching federal government led by a president such as president

obama. in 2012, america needs to elect a president who will govern as a limited government conservative and a goal for tonight is to see how each of these candidates measures up to that standard so we can find ourselves a candidate who reveres and respects the constitution and has a plan and is willing to execute in limiting that government and returning us to the first principles on which this country was built. >> mike: well, let's get right underway. our first candidate is is former house speak are newt gingrich. mr. speaker, thank you for being with us. >> good to be you as always. >> mike: thank you. i'm going to turn you over to the attorneys general and let them have at you. >> okay. >> and pam will start. >> speak are gingrich. thank you for being here tonight. your plans for empowering local neighborhood boards to decide if certain illegal immigrants can stay in our country has been criticized on the ground, that it could undermine the rule of law and

encourage more illegal immigrants to come to our country. how do you respond to those? >> well, first of all, the selective service board model this was based on did not undermine the rule of law, it implemented the draft of world war ii with great sensitivity and allowed local people much liable like a jury trial. allowed local citizens to render judgment on local people, and seen as a very effective model. second, i'm suggesting this only apply to people who have been here a very long time, who have real ties to the local community and exploring the idea that they would actually have to have a family sponsoring them to be eligible for review. now, to suggest that a model that only go, only works after 20 or 25 years, is going to be a magnet, i think, is nonsense, particularly pause, in addition to controlling the border, which is part of my plan, we also have a provision for a guest worker program that would be legal, and that would be implemented by

american express or visa or master card in terms of the cards so you wouldn't have fraud as you will in the federal government. and so, if you're a brand new person looking to come to u.s. for economic reasons you'd have a legal point of entry and there would be no reason to believe anybody will be able to get across the border to stay here illegally for 20, 25 years, some day around 2037, be eligible for review. >> and of course the border is very, very important, but you spoke of jury trials and as a former 20 year prosecutor, my concern is putting friends and neighbors in the position of judging their friends. and to determine if they can stay in this country. >> that is what we do in a jury trial. that's the point of. >> that's why the founding fathers who distrusted inissed on juries. citizen vz to bear responsibility for their culture and society. i believe they're more trustworthy.

if you ask me would i trust a jury or a washington bureaucrat. i'd rather have my fate decided by the jury of my peers than-- >> you speak passionately of smaller government yet you supported individual mandates for health insurance, joining nancy pelosi with respect to climate change and advocated for a significant role for the federal government and education and had close ties to fannie mae and freddie mac. why should limited government conservatives, like me, trust that a president gingrich will not advance these sorts of big government approaches when you are president? >> well, first of all shall the individual mandate originally was developed by heritage foundation and others, as a method to block hillary care in 1993 and virtually all of us who are conservatives came to the conclusion, it was more dangerous and difficult to implement and guaranteed at that politics and politicians would define health care and

virtually why every conservative has in fact left that kind of a model. in terms of, i've said publicly, sitting on the couch with nancy pelosi is the dumbest single thing you've done in the last few years, but if you notice i never favored cap and trade, in fact, i actively testified against it, i was at the u.s. house and energy commerce committee the same taye al gore was there to testify for it, and i testified against it, and through american solutions we actively fought it and i think we played a major role in defeating it. if you look at the my total record, the only speaker in your lifetime to get four balanced budgets, developer of welfare reform and biggest entitlement reform in your lifetime, ab who has advocated a balanced budget constitutional amendment and newt.org, 21st century contract with america which calls for a vigorous 10th amendment enforcement. >> mr. speaker, you have rattled off some conservatives part of your record, but you also, as i rattled have, have a nonconservative part of your

records. what will you do as a president to structure your administration to filter out what i would consider nonconservative, nongovernment, and stick to focusing on limiting government and shrinking-- how will you do that in your administration. >> in my active role in the congress, i helped with ronald reagan of the '80s and helped with the speaker of the house to shrink the federal government. we turned around the figure cal projection. >> i'm asking as president what are you going to do. >> and start with the notion that i've actually done this before. and you have some reason to believe that i could get to a balanced budget because i've gotten to a balanced budget. you have some reason to believe i could control spending because i've controlled spending before. we have as part of our contract with america, at newt.org, a training program as a part of appointing presidential appointees for the reason you're suggesting. you cannot get the scale of change we want, you can't get

the scale of change the tea parties want by just appointing good people who have no understanding about the fight they're about to be in and no understanding of how difficult and hard washington is and i think we have to have a very clearly, philosophically driven program that says this is where this administration's going and by the way, not just the administration, you also have to apply pressure to the house and senate, because under our constitution, unless you have them moving with you, what you're going to get-- >> if i can ask you quick. we've got to take a break, but we're going to continue with speaker gingrich after the break and give him all of his time. we'll be right back, stay with us. [ male announcer ] if you think tylenol is the pain reliever orthopedic doctors recommend most for arthritis pain,

think again. and take aleve. it's the one doctors recommend most for arthritis pain... two pills can last all day. ♪ ♪ two pills can last all day. you want to save money on car insurance? no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance? no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance.

♪ in her eyes... the world is never too big. in his...the weather should never keep you inside. ♪ because they see no limits, there's eukanuba nutrition designed to help their body go as far as their mind wants to.

eukanuba. extraordinary nutrition for extraordinary beings. see the difference in 28 days or your money back. c>> mike: welcome back to huckabee and our special >> welcome back to huckabee and our special presidential forum. we're going to continue with former house speaker newt gingrich. the question from scott pruett. >> good evening, president obama seems to think that washington has the answers to all of our national problems. as you know, all the national problems don't require national solutions. can you name some national problems that neither the president nor congress should solve? >> sure, i would say, first of all, education should be largely returned to the states and most of the washington bureaucracy should be dismantled and states encouragedadopt, and states should be experimenting with what works best because it's clear that the federal government has failed to manage that as a national

thing. and i want to develop an environmental solutions agency to replace the epa. with an agency which has to have economic rationality and has to look for innovation and entrepreneurship and collaborate rather than dictate to state and local governments. those would be three examples. when you say with regard to education, largely returned to the states. >> to the citizens and remind my friends that the 10th amendment talks about the states and citizens and not just moving power, for example from washington d.c. to richard or washington d.c. to tallahassee or washington d.c. to oklahoma city, it's moving power back and i tell every group of citizens i talk to, if we shrink the washington bureaucrats we have to grow local citizenship so would i advocate states consider a pell grant for k through 12. so that you actually, every parent has the right to choose where their grant goes and return power to the parents rather than to the government. >> mr. speaker, you've

proposed not just impeaching judges who issue rulings to deem unconstitutional, but advocating abolishing entire appellate courts. if president obama were to, in the signature health care law would that be an appropriate application of your plan? >> first of all, the president couldn't do it. the president would have to have the support of the house and senate to do it. and i've mentioned specifically judge barry in san antonio who issued a ruling on june 1st, students not only could not play at pray at their graduation, can't use the word benediction, wouldn't use word invocation and couldn't use the word god. couldn't have them to stand or have a moment of silent. he says if any of these are broken i'm going to put the superintendent in jail. as far as i'm concerned, he's unamerican. >> and why use the court. >> that's from the reform act of 1802, but you can only do

it. >> okay. >> if you have the house, senate and president. >> understood, thank you. >> okay. speaker, you've supported the obama administration, race to the top to promote charter schools and your campaign website calls for requiring states to adopt a rigorous education standards. now, we all agree that race to the top is a good thing, as well as charter schools. but is it wrong, yes or no, is it wrong for the federal government to intrude on the state's authority over education? >> it's wrong and that's why, i said i would recommend we turn that power to the states. on the other hand, remember, the presidents are both leaders of the american people and heads of the government. and so, president can perfectly well go to a state and say, i urge you to adopt a pell grant program and i urge you to adopt charter schools and nothing wrong with the president being a leader of the country and that's different than saying the federal government will administer it and the federal government will set the rules. >> you can't have it both ways? can't have it both ways?

>> you can say, the government's not going to dictate, but that doesn't mean that the president can't in fact advocate change. >> mr. speaker, i want to follow-up on the appearance with nancy pelosi and climate change. you said, and you said earlier this evening that was the dumbest thing you have he' ever done. >> well, in years, i don't want to run my whole career through it. >> was it dumb because of bad politics or bad policy. >> first of all, it's accurate, you need innovation and positive ways to solve a case. i was trying to make a case about conservative environmentalism, the reason i'm for environmental solutions agency to replace the epa. it was largely done, because frankly, she became so radioactive that it was impossible for any conservative to be in the same set and not have everybody go, that's crazy. and so they never heard your message. i was trying, i wrote a back with terry maple called "contract with europe" to

argue that there were sound pro market, science and technology innovations that would lead to a better environment. actually a more improved environment than you get out of lawyers and regulators and the epa. >> so we've got less than 30 so we're going to have to take a final question and quick answer. >> who is your favorite founding father and why. >> george washington, we stand on his shoulders and this is his command flag from valley forge. without george washington no dignity, patriotism, endurance. and you know from your state. he returned to mt. vernon for one time in eight years and he thought that's what freedom was worth and that's the standard for us. >> mr. speaker, thank you for your time away from the campaign trail to answer the questions from the attorneys general. and we're going to see you at the end of the forum. remember, you can post your thoughts about the forum on our wall at face

book.com/huckabeeshow and hash tag huck forum. the next candidate will be with us after the break. stay with us. we'll be right back. so humpty dumpty had a... great fall. ugh, it's my sinus congestion, and it's all your fault. naturally blame the mucus. he's funny. instead of blaming me, try this, advil congestion relief. often the real problem is swelling, not mucus. advil congestion relief reduces swelling due to nasal inflammation. so i can breathe. happily ever after. another story? from him! [ mucus ] advil congestion relief. the right relief for the real problem.

premier of the packed bag. you know organization is key... and so is having a trusted assistant. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-s or above and still pay the mid-size price. here we are... [ male announcer ] and there you go, business pro. there you go. go national. go like a pro.

. . >> mike: welcome back to

huckabee and our special presidential forum. and joining us now is former senator rick santorum. >> senator, you recently said in the foreign policy debate in the civil war abraham lincoln ran over our civil rights. are there any parts of the patriot act you see run over the rights of our citizens? >> no, as a matter of fact. >> and why? >> why? i voted for the patriot act. most of the changes were country with what we were doing, for example, with drug king pins and gangsters, if you will, and were not applied because we had a different, we had a different model. we weren't dealing with terrorism prior to the 9/11. and we're allowed not to broaden what were criminal opportunities to find out and intervoen and tap and wire tap and use the tools that the more recent tools for finding out information. and apply those to a terrorist

setting. now we had the opportunity to do so and that's why i voted for. >> how did abraham lincoln run over our civil rights. >> suspending habeas corpus, for example, probably the biggest thing, but the president was dealing with insurrection and i don't think if you look back in history, he did what he had to do to try to hold the union together. we're not in a situation like that where woof that kind of problem, but, we do have problems here in our home soil and we have to, we have to make sure that the laws comport with being able to find terrorists who are here and home grown. >> thank you. >> you bet. >> and i know the strength in the family is important to you and to us. is that a proper function in your perspective with respect to the federal government? >> well. >> if so, how. >> yeah, you know, it is. as you know, karen and i are the father and mother of seven children and family is very important to me and to america. and we've seen a federal government that has undermined the family in a lot of ways, just look at what we've done and some of our welfare programs.

i'm sure everybody, a lot of folks listening here tonight are going to know people who are, who father and mother are living together, but they're not married for the reason they're not married so they can, mother can receive welfare benefits to help support those children. we do things to actually break family's part with government aid. we do things to not encourage marriage. those are things in the law. and obviously, we've dealt for years with the marriage tax penalties that penalize people that get married and the tax code. there are things the president can do beyond passing laws and making sure the laws comfort to support the families. there's discussions we can have. i wrote a book "it takes a family" i care so much about it and in that i talked about a program in chattanooga, tennessee, first thing's first. we found out that the the divorce rate. out of wedlock birth rate and number of single married mothers was the highest or one of the highest in the state of tennessee and appalled by

that, going on in their community. what they did, they came together in the nonprofits, with businesses and with the education community and the government and formed a group to actually go out and promote marriage, promote policies to reduce divorce and it was a bipartisan, led by leaders in the community like a president can lead a revitalization of marriage and focusing on the issue of divorce without passing any laws and that's what the president can do. he has the power to convene and the power to start a national discussion and it's an important power that's rarely used. >> where do the states fit in that with respect to welfare reform and the areas where do the states fit in that model. >> i was actually the author of the federal welfare reform bill when i was in the house and managed the bill on the floor of the senate when i was in the senate and that's the only time we've actually taken a federal program and eliminated it, a federal

entitlement and sent it back to the states. we need to do the same for food stamps and medicaid and same for housing programs and a same for job training programs. all of these programs are administered by the states right now, but, they have this heavy federal component that really doesn't belong there. the role for the states to get back the proper role in taking care of the health and welfare of the size citizens. we should do what we did with welfare, cap it, freeze it, give that money back to the states with the flexibility to manage those programs. >> senator, you've described yourself as pro-life and role for federal government in american's daily lives. since the constitution doesn't speak to the authority to regulate abortion, how would you weigh protecting the rights of unborn children through a federal law banning most abortions, constitutional federalism by allowing each sta

state? >> i support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion or stand up to the right to life and that intimately involves the states as now, the constitutional amendment process requires the rot if ication by the states. so, i've been always a supporter that we need a uniform law on values that undermine our-- excuse me that undergird our country. that's why i feel very strongly and pro he motored the federal maurj amendment and enforced the vote when i was there. can't have 50 definitions of marriage, family and marriage is too important an institution to have different laws around the country just like the sanctity of human life is a basic value. it's in our declaration of independence, our founding document. the whole heart of american exceptionalism is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if we can't institutionlize that in our country and our constitution, it's in our founding document. i don't think our founders could possibly envision that we would have a country that would allow this and--

>> i think you've made that clear, let's try to get to some other questions. >> sure. >> senator in florida it's been very frustrating because as you've probably heard, i've had to sue the epa to stop it from imposing absolutely unsustainable water standards on my state. and it would be devastating for businesses in florida. the obama administration, they have pursued numerous, numerous environmental policies that affect all of us in different ways, that would impose staggering costs on the american people. what principles would you follow in deciding whether to approve any environmental regulations? >> well, i would say this, that what we've seen is a radical environmental policy put forward by this administration. but, it's based upon some very poorly crafted legislation that's in place right now. which, you know, an endangered species act which is the heart of a lot of problems that we felt with in pennsylvania. look at central valley of

california and we've seen these policies because you have poorly drafted, not poorly drafted, deliberate drafted pieces of legislation overly broad not just in the area of environment. national labor relations, we've seen that sld. >> absolutely. you have a broadly warded, this is what the left is best the at. obama care, 700 places you give the secretary the authority to sort of rewrite the bill. >> so what would you do, senator. >> aim getting at that. what i believe we need to do is, i've made this proposal on the road. we will have, we have reauthorizations of all of these acts that come forward. in a lot of case this is they just straight reauthorize them. because you can't, they don't want to refight the war again. what i'll say as president, i won't enforce an act, i won't sign a reauthorization and i won't continue to enforce an act that hasn't been reauthorized. we'll force the congress to go back and take these very bradley written statutes that

allow regulators to run amok and we will fix them and have congress make the decision as to what the laws are and not regulators. >> senator having served in the senate, you've experienced firsthand the importance of separation of powers between the branches of government. why do you think the founders created between the federal and state governments? >> they did it to protect the rights of the states and citizens and went farther than that, they actually had a, the way we established the congress was they had the united states senate be selected by the states, the state legislatures instead of the people. there was a year tact that the government would be limited and the states would have sort of a belt and suspenders ability to keep power at the state level which of course, would mean it'd be closer to people and people have more control to be able to keep that power so we change that with the 17th amendment. the one reason you'll a strong supporter of the balanced

budget amendment. spending 18% of gdp. it will guarantee limited government and guarantee sates and people being more free. >> mike: we're down to the final two minutes and have to keep it exactly that. i'll turn to-- >> senator, president obama's refused to defend the federal defense and marriage act signed into law my bill clinton. constitution constitutionally, why is it the president wrong. first of all, the president has the obligation to defend the laws of our country. this is a bill that was passed and a bill that stands up for an institution that's been in place for a long time, but the president's obligation is to enforce the law and when the law is challenged, his obligation is to step forward and argue that case. in some respects, i'm happy he isn't because he was, he was throwing the -- he was throwing in the case, he was giving up on $. they were rolling over. >> they were rolling over, aim glad na eric holder is not

defending the defense of marriage act i know he doesn't support. >> if a court did find an unconstitutional and were you president, would you stand by that ruling? >> no, i was actually troo to do whatever i could both from the standpoint of passing a new law, and i did this in the partial birth abortion case, supreme court struck down, we passed a new law, told the court they were wrong. and in the the-- we laid out why the court was wrong and repassed the bill and president bush signed it and the court five years after they found it unconstitutional found almost an identical bill constitutional. i think it's important he when the president thinks we are an equal and co-equal branch of government and have as much right as the congress and president to say what is constitutional as the supreme court. if the supreme court got it wrong, i would push back and fight to have another case put before them and let them know they're not the final word. >> senator, finally. >> mike: 20 seconds. >> are the courts the only

arbiter of the constitution. >> i think i answered that, absolutely not. i'll the only one in this field who's actually done something about t only one and called for the abolishment of the 9th circuit and done so. >> mike: senator. >> because the court we have the power to do so, i'm out of time. i appreciate it, mike. >> mike: thank you very much. thank you very much for come ogg of the campaign trail being here tonight and be with these attorneys. great to be with you. >> mike: thank you. we'll see senator santorum also at theened of the forum. coming up, texas governor rick perry, michele bachmann, ron paul and former massachusetts governor mitt romney. stay with us.

♪ >> mike: welcome back to huckabee and >> welcome back to huckabee and our special, republican presidential forum. joining us now is texas governor rick perry and the first question from ken cuccinelli. >> good morning, good to see you. >> yes. >> and you said if you were president, would you block the health care law, what is your authority to unvalidate a law passed by congress and-- >> in the agencies, also, there's a substantial amount of that bill that allowed for the agencies to put the rules in place. so, i'm going to put people in as the head of health and human services, for instance,

that share my philosophy that obviously, medicaid, for instance, needs to be granted back to the states and you know, lord willing we'll get rid of that this summer with the supreme court ruling on the constitutionality issue which i think all of us have joined in that suit and thank you all for being great attorneys general from at that standpoint. it sounds like as president you're going to use affective order to void parts of the law or parts you don't agree with. >> absolutely. >> and what is your authority for that. >> well, the executive order, obviously, gives you that authority, but also, as i said earlier, having men and women in those agencies that are going to share your philosophy, and i think that's a really important message, not just at health and human services, but alt way through, in my plan for getting america back, talked about the energy industry and having the department of interior open up those federal lands and warts

so that we can get into and, mror for and get america more independent on the energy side. millions of jobs can be create and have the security of domestic energy. >> we're getting a little away from the question. i just want to be real clear to make sure i understand this. you're taking the position at that you can stop the implementation of a law fasted by congress, signed by the president with an executive order? >> i'm saying that we can stop parts of it. the other parts of it, obviously, will have to be done from the rule standpoint of those rules implemented by the health and human services, et cetera. >> governor, governor perry, employment gains we can agree have come in right to work states, workers are not forced to join a, you know, to be played. all three of us represent right to work states and we also adamantly imposed the national labor relations board attempt to stop boeing from

adding a plant in south carolina because they are a right to work state. do you favor passing a national right to work law? >> actually, i believe that the states have the responsibility of doing that. big 10th amendment supporter that i am. states compete against ooch other, i used to go over and try to get jobs in arkansas and mike would try to get them out of texas. >> mike: don't tell them how it turned out. >> that's how we get stronger as a country. states that say, you know what, we don't want to be a right to work state. well, places like texas or florida or virginia or oklahoma they're going to be more competitive. and with their tax policies and with their regulatory policy and legal policies, that's how you make america more competitive. get the federal government out of making one size fits all, even if it's for things that we think that we would like, there may be some states out

there, that said, we don't want that and then people can vote with their feet, which is what they do. it's one of the reasons a lot of people move to texas now because we've made it a very, very, good place for businessmen and women to put their capital and know the return on voechlt. >> health care, incarceration. and illegal immigration have cost each of our states billions of dollars. >> yeah. >> should the federal government be required to reimburse the states, if not why? >> we send them a bill every year and to be paid for it and i'm sure the governor did the same when he was in arkansas. the real issue goes back to border security again and that's the reason that we as governors and you as attorney generals, because of the abject failure of our government to defend that border. i've been doing with this ten

years now and sheriff arpaio endorsed me last week in the campaign and because he said now what? this is one guy that actually understands how to secure that border and that's what we have to do as a country, a president that's committed to securing that border, we know how to do it we just don't have the resources for a 1200 mile border to secure it the way it needs to be done. the strategic fencing, the boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air, and you can secure that border. i have made the commitment that 12 months after being inaugurated as president that border will shut down and-- >> governor it's clear you're passionate about the federal border, but clear the government failed to do its job. >> yes. >> would you allow the state to sue the federal government for reimbursement for the cost. >> absolutely. at the end of the day that will be a nonissue because we will secure the border and at that particular point in time

all of these issues we've been facing as governors will start being eliminated. >> mike: we're going to have to take a break here, we'll come back with more with governor rick perry right after the break and stay with us, we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] instantly smooth wrinkles with a shot? wait a second... with olay challenge that. new regenerist wrinkle revolution... relaxes the look of wrinkles instantly, and the look of deep wrinkles in 14 days. ready, set, smooth... regenerist. from olay.

>> mike: we are back. >> we're back, let's continue with texas governor rick perry and the first question this segment from pam. >> thank you. >> governor, as the state continually fails parents and children through inadequate education. does the federal government have an obligation to intervene on the education of these children? >> no, and here is the reason why. if you believe in the 10th amendment, if you believe that those people in that state are

going to impact the legislators, they will do that. and i think that is a situation that we would not ever find ourselves in, because by the time a school failed the children, or the parents would have intervened, the legislature would have intervened. our problem is we've got a federal government that's intervening too much with all of these different programs. so, i truly believe that the education of our children is a state and a local issue and the federal government needs to completely stay out of it. >> okay. and in essence-- talking about all of these programs, governor, would you be willing to get rid of federal assistance for school lunch, pell grants, the g.i. bill? >> absolutely. i think there's a better way to distribute those dollars. now, there may be some of those programs, whether it's the g.i. bill, that we leave in place, but the idea that the federal government needs to be taking as many billions

of dollars as it takes from the state, up to washington d.c., running it through the department of education and then picking winners and losers, actually, i don't agree with that at all. so, look at every program, but i do away with the department of education, i'd do away with it. i think that's a waste of time and waste of money and the state substantially better place to educate our children. >> governor, what does the term strict instructionist mean to you and would that be your standard for the supreme court. >> alito and roberts, the type of jurorists not a legislator in a road and we have about four of each of those right now on our supreme court and that's the reason that i've called for, in my overhaul in washington, a term for supreme court justices, instead of these lifetime appointments. i mean, there's he no

accountability there, there's no check and balance and i think if you put a term. how, obviously, that would take a constitutional amendment, governor, but i believe in it so much that that is what we need to do from the standpoint of making sure that we don't have these legislators and robes at that we have on that court today. the idea that they're telling us how we can pray, the idea whether they're telling us that our kids can pray in school. idea of their telling us in texas we can't have the ten commandments on our capitol grounds. that's pretty offensive to me and i think a lifetime appointment for folks that think that way might not be too good. >> governor, have the judges you've advanced if texas matched that model? >> absolutely. i put some great justices, fact-- as a matter of fact i've appointed six of the nine on the supreme court and they have to run for office, we've had openings, but those justices have been strict

constructionists when it comes to making decisions and i'm proud of those men and women. >> governor, what's most impressible to you, overturning roe versus wade or human rights amendment-- >> doing both actually, the fact is until you get the constitutional amendment passed which is going to take some years, in the state we have parental consent, sonogram bill in the state of texas the last time so we have some protections for our individuals. and until we pass that life amendment to the united states constitution i want to protect life in the states. so, i'm actually for both until we get the constitutional amendment to our u.s. constitution passed. >> governor, other than overseeing historically questionable union elections is there really any reason that labor law has to be completely dominated by the government or can it be left to the states?

>> i think leaving it to the states as well. listen, that's the same the right to work laws. if people in states want to put their businesses at a competitive disadvantage and make people join unions, that ought to be their call. >> so would you be ready to except except for overseeing the union elections would you be ready to completely get the federal government out of that business and leave it all to the states. >> absolutely. >> okay. >> mike: we're in our final minute and ken cuccinelli. >> who is your favorite founding father and why. >> my fame-- i'm going to have to say madison he was just, i mean, the, those federalist papers and those things that he put together, i mean, just an incredibly brilliant visionary individual. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, governor. >> mike: one final thing, you have a few seconds left. we've all talked about strict constructionists, for the laymen out there. help them understand what exactly that means. >> well, there -- it's right

there. excuse me, i took it out of my paper. that's the constitution, read it, exactly what it says. that's what we're talking about. don't read anything into it, don't add to it, don't use these different clauses to, whether it's a commerce clause or any of the other clauses to try to change what our founding fathers were telling us. >> mike: thank you, thank you very much. governor, great to have you here, i appreciate it. >> you're welcome. >> mike: governor rick perry and we'll see governor perry at the end of the forum and you can post your thoughts about the forum at our wall at facebook.com/huckabeeshow and also tweet using the hash tag huckabee forum. coming up minnesota congresswoman michele bachma bachmann, mitt romney and we'll be right back. eds. wait a minute...i... [ laughs ]

[ male announcer ] the lexus december to remember sales event is here, but only for a limited time. see your lexus dealer. simple relief is here. introducing robitussin® nasal relief pills. the right relief for nasal congestion...in a pill. ♪ ne from robitussin®. relief made simple. ne from robitussin®. you wouldn't want your doctor doing your job.

so why are you doing hers? only your doctor can determine if your persistent heartburn is actually something more serious... like acid reflux disease. over time, stomach acid can damage the lining of your esophagus. for many, prescription nexium not only provides 24-hour heartburn relief, but can also help heal acid related erosions in the lining of your esophagus. talk to your doctor about the risk for osteoporosis-related bone fractures and low magnesium levels with long-term use of nexium. possible side effects include headache, diarrhea and abdominal pain. other serious stomach conditions may still exist. let your doctor do her job, and you do yours. ask if nexium is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

you are a strong >> you've been a strong, i trust because of the individual mandate awn went so far as to say that the states cannot pass an individual mandate and they'd like the-- >> i think it's to the liberty that each one of us has and there can be reasonable on that issue. overriding issue i want the american people to realize if we do absolutely nothing, obama care will be implemented and it's going to change the face of the country forever. and it's going to cost trillions of dollars over the years, it's going to take away our liberty. it could have the potential collapse in medicare, because it takes 500 billion dollars

out of medicare, and it's also for the first time in the history of the country, it has taxpayer subsidized abortion, it really is the new social engineering playground of the left and has to be stopped. one thing i'd like to mention in august of this year, president obama in a stunning level of power, demonstrated how far a president can go with obama care, because, he ordered every private insurance company in the united states to now offer free of charge the morning after abortion pill, contraceptives and on and on and so this is it. and what i want people to know, we have one chance to get rid of this bill, and it's in this election cycle. >> congresswoman, i want to really understand, virginia passed a statute saying that foe one could be forced to buy health insurance in the state of virginia and passed an amendment saying in oklahoma are you saying the state didn't have the authority to

do that. >> you had the authority to pass that statute. the problem as both of you know. the frol obama care bill will trump the state statute. you did the right thing, you said this is the opinion of the people in oklahoma, of virginia you don't want to come under that federal government restriction, i agree with that. the problem is it's the law of the land right now. if we do nothing, it's going to continue to steam roll every state that there is, i don't want to see socialized medicine, the law of the land and fundamentally it's the foundation for socialized medicine. >> congresswoman, thank you for being here. you've pledged to deport all 11 million illegal aliens. homeland security tells that will cost 135 billion dollars. tell us, first, how you plan to pay that, for that, and how you execute that plan? >> well, first of all, i want people to know that there is a cost already to having illegal aliens in the united states. and it costs us, the

taxpayers, 113 billion dollars every year and 32 billion of that cost is absorbed by the state and that actually works out to about $1,000 per mrn household. it's a very real cost. and i agree, this is a -- this is the thorniest, most difficult issue in dealing with illegal immigration. what about deportation? i believe that we should uphold the law of the land which does include deportation, how do we pay for it, the american taxpayer-- >> what is your plan for executing it? >> for executing that. >> yeah, for carrying out the plan. >> good question, it would be enforcement, enforcement both at the border, but also by the ice agents. right now essentially, our ice agents, those are the agents in the interior of the country, who are tasked with enforcing the laws, they're not enforcing them. and we also have sanctuary cities now where he they don't enforce the laws either on deportation, i think what we simply need to do is just start enforcing tho